Semantics on goals...important?

[Sindyr]

So if Y is like whistling, then X can whistle all he wants, and Z can't stop him until the Goal is resolved.  If Y is like destroying the Earth, then X can't actually destroy the Earth until the goal is resolved.  Unless it's a Groundhog Day-style scenario, or Z can do a "replay" jump-back-in-time-for-5-seconds thing, or...well, you get the idea.

J

Goal: John prevents Fred from whistling from noon until 1PM.

If it's currently 5 after twelve, then Fred cannot be narrated whistling without invalidating the goal.

Therefor any narration involving Fred whistling can have the Not Yet rule applied.

Therefor Fred is now blocked from whistling until after the Goal resolves.

Right?

[drnuncheon]

Goal: John prevents Fred from whistling from noon until 1PM.

If it's currently 5 after twelve, then Fred cannot be narrated whistling without invalidating the goal.

Right.  You've just moved it into "destroy the earth" category - you've made it an activity that causes the Goal to be resolved prematurely.

J

[TonyLB]

Uh ... hold on ... this is so abstract that I'm feeling a little bit at sea here.  What am I supposed to weigh in on?

I'm going to fictionally Actual Play this.  I'm playing Galagon, effete arch-nemesis of the Earth Defense Seven.  His plan has been foiled.  Again.

One of the ED7 creates "Goal:  Galagon escapes."  What outcomes can I get by vetoing?

If I say "Oh, I desperately need Galagon to escape, so I will veto that goal" then I've accomplished nothing.  The person just pops right back and says "Goal:  ED7 captures Galagon before he escapes" and I'm toast.  I can't escape if they still have a chance to capture me before my escape, and they can't capture me before my escape if I escape.  I really can't veto my way to not having to fight in order to escape.  That's not what the veto is for.

If I say "Escape? Uh ... dudes?  Galagon's still got a Thermionic Bomb, and he's a vengeful, self-destructive twit.  Why would he try to escape?" then I've accomplished something.  I've communicated to people that they have misjudged my intentions, and that another goal ("Goal:  Galagon detonates Thermionic Bomb and destroys Tokyo") would be more profitable.  That's what the veto is for.

Does that make things any more clear?  I'm ... a little perplexed by this thread, honestly.  People seem awfully confused in theory by things that I have never seen be more than momentarily confusing in practice, and I'm a little hard-pressed to see what's causing all the hubbub.

[Hans]

Does that make things any more clear?  I'm ... a little perplexed by this thread, honestly.  People seem awfully confused in theory by things that I have never seen be more than momentarily confusing in practice, and I'm a little hard-pressed to see what's causing all the hubbub.

I have my questions answered, I no longer am confused, especially after your fictional actual play example.  Thank you.

[Sindyr]

I know this is an abstract thought experiment that may not come up during actual play, but I am curious to see what the limits of Capes are:

If in game it is 3PM, then,

Goal: ED7 prevents Galagon from achieving or experiencing any kind of success, accomplishment, or satisfaction from 3PM until midnight.

Now, until the Goal gets resolved, Galagon cannot be narrated doing anything significant.

Right?

[TonyLB]

Sure looks like you've got the wording tied up tight, yep.  The ED7 are constantly hounding his steps, making the food in his mouth taste of dust and ashes, stealing any little joy or meaning from his life.

CURSE YOU ED7!  I WILL NEVER FORGIVE!

[Sindyr]

FYI  - I would probably never play this on ya, just wanted to know if it were doable.

Thanks Tony.

[TonyLB]

I wonder if you caught the subtext:  the subtext is that such a "mega-restricting conflict" in no way restricts me (the player) from playing and succeeding at the game or from using Galagon as a tool to do so.  In fact, it's probably a slight losing move for you, because it makes it much easier for me to create entertaining narration and steal your resources. 

I can still win tons of conflicts and basically beat the pants off of the ED7 in every way that matters.  I just don't do it through the direct agency of Galagon.  I use him as a fictional tool rather than a personal avatar.  So Galagon can't achieve anything ... but public opinion can sway to favor this plucky interstellar underdog, and the ACLU can file restraining orders on the ED7, and all that jazz.

So, Sindyr:  Please do play such a conflict on me.  I've had it done.  It works to my advantage, every single time.

[Sindyr]

Pride goeth before a fall....?

Heh heh.

While being ooposed to subtext (grin) cause I like directness, I knew that.

My question was about preventing the fictional character Galagon from being effective, not Tony. ;)

Thanks

[TonyLB]

Yes, you can totally prevent Galagon from being effective from his point of view.  You can't stop Tony from using him effectively as a tool to influence the fiction.

Screw Galagon.  He's fictional.  He doesn't get a say in what happens.

[Sindyr]

Perhaps thats enough - he may be fictional, but he bugs me.

*heh* - pulling your leg a bit.

[Andrew Cooper]

Perhaps thats enough - he may be fictional, but he bugs me.

*heh* - pulling your leg a bit.

No!  Don't be pulling our legs!  That's the reaction you want your characters (especially villains) to have on people.  If he bugs you, then you'll throw down nasty Conflicts to humiliate, shame, beat, mutilate and make his sorry ass miserable.  Then Tony (the player) gets rewarded and the character (or another equally annoying one) uses that reward to piss you off some more so that you'll start the cycle again.  This is how it works.

[Sindyr]

If the game becomes a never ending cycle of putting down a countless supply of annoying and obnoxious villains, that would get tiresome very fast.  Eventually, hopefully, the game would include more depth, such as character evolution.

In fact, character development is quite possibly the cornerstone of good storytelling.  And I see no reason why this cannot occur in Capes just as easily as any other rpg.

You just need more sophistiticated players that instead of always reaching for the stick to get story tokens, they reach for the carrot. :)

[TonyLB]

If the game becomes a never ending cycle of putting down a countless supply of annoying and obnoxious villains, that would get tiresome very fast.

I don't see why.  We're doing comic book stories here, right?  If Stan Lee wasn't above hitting Spiderman with a new made-up villain every single issue, why should we be?  And if it worked for him why wouldn't it work for us?

[Sindyr]

You know me - I think that any group, if they are having fun, is doing something right (and vice versa).

For me personally, I like to see stories that are serial rather than episodic - where some kind of concrete progress is being made - either by the protagonists better understanding themselves, or coming to grips with their problems.  In the best stories, I find the plot is the *backdrop* for the character growth that slowly occurs.

That's just how I see it.  I think Capes can be used to tell serialized stories that go deeper than the bad guy of the week - I think Capes could be used to make a Buffy, for example.   Sure Buffy had new bad guys all the time, but they were backdrops to the themes and character issues within, most of the time.

So the carrot you can dangle is...  character growth.  I would *love* to pay off someone with story tokens to create conflicts that let me slowly and with purpose grow and develop my character.

So when you see me yawning as we beat yet another bad guy, perhaps you can instead see me waving a wad of story token cash around to create something a little different - something for me to fight for instead of against...

[wink]